The Syrian crisis tests the UN

Oct 03, 2012

Andrei Ilyashenko

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: “Some of our partners have shown attempts to alter these agreements and revert to applying unilateral pressure, without consideration for the fact that well-armed groups of people are fighting each other in Syr

The UN is currently in session and discussions about the Syrian crisis are still stuck in the rut of a propaganda war. The real discussion is about how effective the international organization is and how well the UN is suited for the role of main international arbitrator between the biggest players in global politics.

Ministers of foreign affairs
gathered in New York for a United Nations General Assembly, as combined
diplomatic efforts to control the Syrian crisis headed toward a deadlock.
Russia and China have thrice vetoed a resolution that would allow foreign
military intervention in Syria. In addition, plans for a joint special envoy
were never carried out, because the opposition in Syria failed to enter into political
dialogue with Bashir Assad’s regime in the country.

The Geneva agreements
also continue to have more bark than bite. In these agreements, the permanent
members of the UN Security Council called for the creation of a provisional
government in Syria, the establishment of multiparty elections, and a review of
the Syrian constitution on the basis of a national dialogue.

On this subject,
Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov said: “Some of our partners
have shown attempts to alter these agreements and revert to applying unilateral
pressure, without consideration for the fact that well-armed groups of people
are fighting each other in Syria.”

The meaning of the
phrase “unilateral pressure” is clear from context of a speech given by U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At the open meeting of the UN Security
Council on Sept. 27, Secretary Clinton stated that the U.S. supports political
changes that do not involved Assad. The leader’s resignation, departure or
emigration is the key solution put forward by Europe and the Middle East in
rhetorical attacks aimed at Damascus.

Assad is definitely not
well-liked in Moscow or Beijing.

“We are not saying this is a man who will be able
to lead the new Syria, and we are not looking for someone to replace him,”
Lavrov told the General Assembly. “This is not about individuals. For us, it is
more important that everyone living in the country – Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites,
Druze, Christians, Kurds – has rights that are observed, including their right
to security and economic, political and social rights. This is much more
important than hunting down one single person”

Instead, Moscow proposes
that foreign players put pressure on all Syrian sides, in a coordinated effort to
persuade them to stop the violence and enter into a political dialogue. This is
the position shared by other BRICS member states, as well. Yet, the opposition continues
to receive moral support from the West, and the civil war in Syria rages on.

There are some calls that
essentially suggest the UN be ignored. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin
Khalifa Al Thani, suggested that Arab countries think about military
intervention in Syria. He noted that a precedent for this already exists: in
1976, following a decision taken by the Arab League, troops were mobilized in
Lebanon to put an end to the civil war there. “This intervention was effective
and good for the country,” said Hamad. When explaining why Arab countries
should take the initiative to resolve problems in Syria, he expressed doubts as
to whether the UN Security Council would manage to reach a unified decision on
the issue.

“At a time when we are
seeing more and more bloodshed, the Security Council is doing nothing. I call
on them to try to find a way to reach an agreement that will put an end to the
violence,” Secretary Clinton said.

British Prime Minister
David Cameron subjected the actions of the Security Council to even harsher
criticism. The main thing is not the fact that criticism is again being aimed
at Moscow and Beijing. The main thing is that the U.S., the UK, France and the
majority of Arab countries are not ready to act independently of the UN or to
do anything without a mandate from this international organization.

The U.S. has already carried
out a military operation on Syria’s eastern neighbor, Iraq. The operation was
undertaken without the UN’s consent and without the consent of several of key
members such France and Germany. The status of the self-proclaimed “Coalition
of the Willing” has not given U.S. and British forces either international
legitimacy or authority in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Their quick military
victory resulted in political collapse in Iraq and a serious loss of face in
the region.

Clearly anticipating challenges in New York on the
day before his departure, Lavrov said in an interview: “to rephrase Churchill’s
famous quote on democracy, I can say only that the UN is not perfect – but it is
the best thing humankind has been able to come up with.”